| |
Posted Nov 10, 2007, 3:34 PM
|
 |
Closed account
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
|
|
Randall Denley's take on Mills' idea regarding developing parts of the Greenbelt:
Quote:
Greenbelt can be unbuckled
Look at a map to see that development is possible without sacrificing our favourite natural areas
Randall Denley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, November 10, 2007
NCC chairman Russell Mills's suggestion that some parts of the Greenbelt be considered for development has created a predictable reaction. People have been quick to defend their favourite natural areas and politicians have lined up to take the popular position of Greenbelt champion.
Mills's argument that developing parts of the Greenbelt adjacent to freeways could be good for the environment is counterintuitive, but it makes sense if one takes the time to think about it. At the very least, it's an idea worth careful consideration.
The fact is, Ottawa is going to grow. It can either be in certain limited areas of the Greenbelt adjacent to major highways, or it can be beyond our existing suburbs, far to the east, south and west. That farflung growth costs more to service, makes transit less effective and adds miles to our commutes every day, whether we ride the bus or drive our cars.
The Greenbelt was at first intended to contain growth, then the idea was that the suburbs outside the Greenbelt would become satellite communities with their own employment base. That failed dramatically in Orléans and is a modest success in Kanata. Now, development has also been driven south, putting more cars on an inadequate road network. This was the problem the city hoped to partly solve with a $1-billion light-rail line.
When we hear the word Greenbelt, most of us think of the nature trails and conservation areas that we use and value.
That's not the whole picture. The Greenbelt is already sliced up by the city's biggest highways and a number of major municipal roads. The highways in particular have already ended the pretense that the Greenbelt is a continuous interconnected band. In reality, it's a series of green chunks fenced in by roads. Of the Greenbelt's 22,000 hectares, 840 hectares are already developed and another 600 have been identified by the NCC for future development, likely for national institutions that require a lot of space. This designation concedes the point that Greenbelt land is developable, but there isn't much current demand for this kind of large campus. The Greenbelt also contains Ottawa's major airport, not exactly a natural feature.
Five thousand hectares, nearly one-quarter of the whole Greenbelt, is farmland. What's the point in government owning thousands of acres of farmland, and then leasing it back to farmers, so we can watch them farm as we drive by? We can see farmers farming their own land at no cost in the countryside we're in the process of sacrificing to development.
To see the possibilities the Greenbelt offers, you need only look at a map. Check out the area between the 416 and Eagleson Road, on both sides of the Queensway, south to Hazeldean Road and north to Carling. It's a vast amount of land, at least as large as Kanata North. It looks nice and green on the map, but in reality, it's mostly farmers' fields and scrub brush. It already contains the National Capital Equestrian Park, a government-owned tent and trailer park and federal office buildings. This is not your favourite natural area and it has limited public access now.
In the eastern part of the city, look at the land surrounding Blackburn Hamlet and on the sides of the 174. Of particular interest is the NCC-owned, city-operated Pineview Golf Club, a prime development site that would get government out of the golf business, which is already overloaded with courses.
If even the corridors immediately adjacent to the Queensway and the 174 were developed, it would dramatically curb urban sprawl. Who wants to live far from the core if he can live closer? This kind of development obviously won't undo what we've already done with our suburbs, but it would end the nature-destroying expansion that occurs in this city every day.
If these lands were to be developed, it should probably be handled by the federal Canada Lands Company, not the NCC, which doesn't have an encouraging track record when it comes to managing development. Owning this land gives government a strong measure of control over what is ultimately developed, enabling us to do something better then the suburban tract housing our developers favour.
People have cynically assumed that developing Greenbelt lands would be a cash grab by the NCC. The commission is no longer under pressure to sell land for operations, having received better funding from the federal government. Mills's suggestion was sparked by concern over the best way to develop, not money for the NCC. Any money realized by the land sale could easily be put into a fund for acquisition of land of actual environmental significance.
One of the key selling points for developing the Greenbelt corridors adjacent to major highways is just that fact. It simply makes sense to develop land that already has good transportation access rather than put our tax dollars into farflung suburbs that require big new roads. Adding our increased population on routes that transit already covers would also help provide the volume of passengers and the compact routes that transit needs to be effective.
As the city grows, we will inevitably sacrifice some natural areas to new housing. The important questions are where should that housing go, how will people get to work and what form will the housing take? If Greenbelt development is considered, the answers to all those questions change. We need a factual analysis of those benefits.
Nothing happens in this town without a process, and fortunately, one is at hand. The NCC's Greenbelt master plan is more than a decade old and is due for review. It's the appropriate way to challenge how we develop and give the public an opportunity to make informed decisions.
There is no use complaining about urban sprawl if we ignore the obvious solution. Let's not be afraid to challenge our own conventional thinking.
Contact Randall Denley at 596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
|
I'm noticing a disturbing trend of actually agreeing with Randall Denley.
|
|
|
Prev
So sad and yet so true. 
I've noticed a couple of letters to the editor also in favour of looking at Greenbelt development, and today's op-ed on rural growth also has an interesting angle: free up some Greenbelt land to protect the true rural character of the rural area. Have you guys noticed how much Ottawa's rural area is just lower-density suburbia? Greely-Manotick is an almost continuous blob of supersized lots along crescents that wind their way through forest land. North of Kanata, same thing: one subdivision after another.
No use window-dressing the obvious.
Linear Mode
